CHAPTER 3: APPROACH TO ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
George Street Research was commissioned to conduct an analysis of the consultation responses and this document constitutes the final report of this analysis. Findings from 4 focus groups and a consultation event conducted on a separate basis were supplied to us and our report notes any areas of difference and commonality between these and the consultation responses.
It is intended that these results will help to provide further evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on the Member's Bill proposing a levy on plastic bags. It will also feed into development of future actions that could be taken by the Scottish Executive on household waste prevention and to feed into an action plan on household waste prevention in Scotland.
3.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The analytical framework used in our analysis of the consultation responses was an electronic ACCESS database specifically written for this consultation. This enabled a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to be undertaken.
The fields used to record the material in the ACCESS database were based on the questions set out in the consultation document.
The text from free flowing responses was, where possible, assigned to a specific question and stored in the relevant field.
3.3 PUBLICATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES
Where respondents have agreed to publication, these responses are available in the Scottish Executive library. After discussion with the consultation team, the convention adopted for this consultation has been to preserve anonymity of individual respondents and organisations, but to attribute their comments and quotes to the grouped respondent category to which they fit. In this way, a further depth is added to the analysis by providing some contextual information about the respondent type.
3.4 GROUND RULES
Separate Responses from the Same Individual/Organisation
On occasions, a respondent may send in more than one response. The consultation team at the Scottish Executive were primarily responsible for identifying and removing any such duplicates. The research team at George Street Research were also prepared for the possibility of double entries in that they ensured that any identical or duplicate responses that had been missed were picked up and removed from the exercise. This was done by hand searching or electronic screening.
Quality Control
In order to minimise any inconsistencies in approach the research team at George Street Research was kept to a minimum size with all working to a well tested set of rules for data examination and entry. In accordance with our standard practice members of the research team verified 10% of coding and data entry and highlighted areas where a second opinion was required.
Factual Accuracy
The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or may, indeed, be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report may, therefore, contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate or based on misunderstanding or misinformation on the actual proposals but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.
Interpretation of Findings
Those participating in the consultation exercise were self selecting and each had their particular motivation to take part. The exercise was not intended to gain views that were representative of the Scottish population, but was intended to give all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so. This has to be borne in mind in interpreting the findings presented here in this report.
Given the self-selecting nature of any consultation exercise, it should be noted that any statistics quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.
3.5 REPORTING
The following chapters document the substance of the analysis, presenting the main issues, arguments and views expressed in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in the consultation document. Verbatim quotations have been taken from the database for illustrative purposes.